Jan Brown

[Training, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development if the Prime Minister was serious about his promise of administrative changes in government and would the provinces be given the exclusive role of manpower training. The minister refused to commit to this.

Will the minister agree to the Alberta government's request to immediately convene a meeting of the forum of labour market ministers to negotiate the final decentralization of manpower training?

[Training, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the minister of human resources. I will take this one step further, responding to the opening of the door last night by the Prime Minister to change the status quo.

I ask the minister now to commit to a time and a place he will get the provincial ministers together so they can negotiate the decentralization of manpower training.

[Training, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister admitted he is open to all paths for change to the administration of government. One area in which the provinces have long been seeking jurisdiction is training, which Reformers also have long advocated.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow suit and commit to giving the provinces exclusive control over manpower training?

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House on a topic that has thus far provoked spirited discussion.

As its preamble states, Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, was introduced by the government with the intention of achieving equality in the workplace and amending the disadvantages experienced by certain groups.

Underlying the bill is an approach to equality which suggests we measure success in terms of results or outcomes. Herein lies a difference in definition as we disagree on the bill. There are two opposing ideologies in the debate: one focused on equality as a process and the other on equality as an outcome.

Process people of which I am one direct their energies to the supply side. They encourage people to train and educate, to deal with values and habits, to promote an open environment where specialization is fostered, to reward merit and to reject discrimination on the basis of extraneous factors. Process people accept the results of a world operating in this fashion, one where the outcome is not predetermined but where individuals have the capacity to manufacture their future. Process people believe in remedial action but choose to limit their response to those truly in need.

Outcome people, such as those who support the bill, are not satisfied with creating equal opportunities for this is not enough. They prefer to manipulate a process, to consciously intervene and to create the results they believe are justified. They construct laws to ensure their overt interventions are safeguarded against legal challenges. The government has already done this, providing a constitutional guarantee that the principle of equality can be supplanted for intrusive and sometimes coercive state goals. I am speaking to section 15.2 of the charter which rejects in plain language the brave assertion of its companion clause 15.1 guaranteeing to all Canadians equal treatment before the law.

The question of defining equality lies at the heart of this debate, I believe. Unlike the equality of outcome as described in Bill C-64, the equality of opportunity nurtures an environment where outcomes are predetermined, allowing society to reward enterprise and initiatives. Opportunity is the cornerstone of a prosperous, creative and thriving culture. It provides a foundation for personal fulfilment and self-actualization. Most important, it enables people to believe in themselves in the sense that they alone control their destiny.

Bill C-64 corrupts this conceptualization of opportunity by placing a higher premium on premeditated intervention to fashion outcomes. This wounds all Canadians and cannot be supported.

Let us focus on the goals of employment equity for a moment. The very goals on which this legislation is premised are flawed, confused and contradictory. Notions of equality, numerical targets and diversity are fraught with problems. Bill C-64 offers equality for some at the expense of others. Numerical targets are flawed by their very design. Establishing targets obscures numerical goals with the idea of equality.

There is a substantial difference between recognizing that certain groups have encountered historical barriers and assuming that all social inequalities are attributable to discrimination.

We must ask ourselves whether men and women would fill occupations in equal numbers in a world of perfectly free choice.

The answer is probably not. Similarly, would ethnic minorities appear equally in all work environments? Again, most likely no. A numbers game simply circumscribes choice and counters any notion of equity.

Searching for the ideal of diversity is yet another confused goal. Does anybody know what diversity in this context really means? As someone aptly suggested, it merely reflects a language of willed ignorance in which the words mean only that the speaker has good intentions.

How can we even begin to consider seriously such legislation when its foundation is constructed on such faulty principles? There is a serious danger in beginning a task when its objectives are distorted by contradiction and imperfection. If I measure a value and our sense of direction is unclear our efforts will surely be wasted.

Another concern relates to the basic question of whether a need for employment equity exists at all. Evidence has surfaced in recent years which calls into question the reasons on which employment equity is based. By making reference to this evidence it is not my intention to disavow the existence of racism and discrimination. Instead I wish to make clear that discrimination and gender alone are not enough to explain the vastly dissimilar outcomes different groups experience in the course of their lives. Culture, religion and family patterns are other reasons which keep people out of certain occupations.

For example, economist Thomas Sowell found that teen marriages are more prevalent in certain ethnic populations. He maintains that women who marry at very young ages do not pursue post-secondary education and therefore limit the range of jobs for which they might qualify. The answer then is not numerical goals and timetables but one of culture and education.

Recent data from a 1995 Statistics Canada study reinforced these ideas further. While it was found that visible minorities were less likely than any other Canadian to be employed in managerial occupations, most likely explained by the fact that they are on average younger than other adults, members of visible minorities were as likely as other Canadians to be employed in professional occupations. In essence the report is confirming that at all levels of the economy visible minorities enjoy rates of employment comparable to those of other Canadians.

How then do we justify Bill C-64? Like other employment equity legislation it treats members of visible minorities of homogeneous groups having the same character, composition and history. This is fundamentally wrong. For example, data reveal that 13 per cent and 19 per cent of Japanese Canadians are employed in managerial and professional categories respectively, while only 8 per cent and 9 per cent are found in manual and service categories. This type of breakdown will necessarily be different when compared with the experience of Filipinos and East Indians for example. All groups are different with compelling reasons explaining their variable representation in the workplace.

Are there alternatives to employment equity? There is considerable evidence to suggest policy alternatives based on equality of opportunity do exist. Many are already an entrenched feature of the Canadian work world. The systemic discrimination found in many areas of an organization's structure suggest we can approach problems without the use of quotas. For example, we can do more as federal legislators to foster equitable hiring in both public and private sectors through the improvement of education which includes special training programs for target groups, academic upgrading, pre-apprenticeship programs, training of all staff in cross cultural awareness to promote a positive working environment.

We can look at dismantling systemic barriers, which would include policies promoting flexible hours which can be of particular benefit to women with young children, people with disabilities who need special transportation systems and workers whose religious requirements may conflict with typical hours of work, and support measures dealing with employment problems including daycare facilities and revised rules for parental leave.

We can emphasize individual achievement so that an individual's training, performance and knowledge, skills and ability are considered paramount in all workplace decisions.

My remarks have addressed equality of opportunity, the confused goals of Bill C-64 and the question of need, highlighting the inherent problems with employment equity and Bill C-64. Social democrats have historically sought to forge links across race and gender lines in pursuit of a common citizenship with equal rights.

In contrast, the government's policies reinforce the notion that the interests of males and females and diverse ethnic groups are distinctive and competitive. Does Bill C-64 really lead us toward the better society to which we aspire? I think not.

[Women's History Month, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize and commemorate the Persons case from 1921, especially in the midst of great parliamentary diversity of opinion and focus as we speak today.

I would like to first congratulate all of the women today who received Governor General's awards: Marthe Asselin Vaillancourt, Dr. Mary Cohen, Ruth Flowers, Sheila Kingham, Carolyn Thomas, and Alice Taylor, who are all being recognized for their efforts toward making Canada a place in which all are treated equally. These women stand for everything that has gone right in Canadian history.

Look at the progress that has been made in Canadian society since 1929 when women received the right to vote. Today I refer and indeed also defer to those five Albertans, women all, who challenged successfully the convention of their day to bring the vote to women.

The secretary of state briefly mentioned the importance of family in society. This is a message that is sometimes forgotten or passed over when we are caught up in the singular focus of women's issues. As a party we affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society. Hopefully, this is a principle about which we may all agree, because once we have agreement we will have a fundamental basis from which to move forward.

We constantly hear comments and stories about women doing things differently and having different approaches to communicating. This is true, and perhaps more so for the women we recognize today as they receive the Governor General's award for their contributions to society.

Let us also look to history and in particular to Agnes Macphail and Nellie McClung, extraordinary women indeed. They broke ground for women today and they did it because they were focused, had strong convictions, and they also had a creative edge to bring their point home.

These women of the early suffrage movement had a sense of humour, were thoughtful in their world view, and for the most part could handle themselves well in difficult situations. For example, at a rally held in 1915 a heckler yelled at Nellie McClung: "The Prime Minister would quit politics if a woman were ever elected". Well, Nellie did not wilt. Instead, she replied: "This proves what a purifying effect a woman would have on politics".

McClung was no shrinking violet. She was fair minded, good humoured, and determined. These qualities typify Canadians and also my colleague from Yukon who was honoured by the House today.

We still need to work to guarantee equal opportunity for all. We may disagree on the quality of outcome, but whether we agree or not, when we as women engage in debate we must still struggle to relay our message.

McClung staged demonstrations to make her point in her time. In recent memory, one member of this House is said to have hiked up her skirts and jumped over a desk to make her point. Another member, this member, sat on the hood of a sports car to make hers. John Crosbie and the modern feminist movement are still shaking their heads.

Let us look at Agnes Macphail. When she first entered the House of Commons as Canada's first woman MP in 1921, a Commons employee tried to stop her at the door of the Chamber. She entered anyway, while he shouted, "You can't go in there, Miss". Once

inside, Macphail was touched to find a bouquet of roses waiting on her desk, but was humiliated later to learn that they were the penalty a male MP paid for betting she would lose the election in her Ontario riding.

Since women were given the vote in 1929, tremendous advancements have been made. Some of them have come amazingly late, but still we achieve. We have gone through periods when women and men toiled apart as changes occurred. We are finally coming to a place where we recognize that men and women together and as equals can create the kind of country we all want to live in.

I would like to extend again my congratulations to all the recipients of the Governor General's awards today.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that the Reform Party is ready to go. Just watch for October 11 next week when we will be making our announcement.

Two weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources Development stated the Canada pension plan is not in a state of collapse. However, the chief actuary in the finance department last week wrote in a letter: "The Canada pension plan fund is expected to be exhausted by the year 2015".

My question is for the Minister of Finance. When it comes to the status of the Canada pension plan, who does he believe, the HRD minister or his chief actuary?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech in 1991 the Minister for Human Resources Development worried about the concerns and anxieties of Canadians over future levels of funding for the Canada pension plan. In the past four years those concerns have not gone away, they have only gotten worse. The minister has had two years to address these concerns, but he has failed to do so.

Will the minister end the speculation and uncertainty for Canadian seniors, deliver on his promise to reform the Canada pension plan and announce here and now a specific date for reforms of the Canada pension plan?

[Pensions, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hon. member's response and would like to continue with a supplementary question.

Reform believes that pension reform can be done without cutting seniors' pensions and without raising payroll taxes. In his letter last week the chief actuary for finance recommended that the government either raise taxes or cut benefits in order to save the Canada pension plan.

Will the minister reject the advice of the chief actuary, refuse to cut seniors' pensions and refuse to raise payroll taxes?

[Pensions, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister will not tell us when he will release his long overdue reform of the Canada pension plan but perhaps he will share with us what he is planning to do.

Through access to information we have obtained a briefing note by a senior policy analyst in HRD. She states that the Canada pension plan is financially unsustainable. She recommends that the minister either cut seniors' pensions or raise taxes to pay for the shortfall.

Will the minister promise seniors that he will not cut their pensions? And, will he promise taxpayers that he will not raise their taxes? Yes or no.

[Privilege, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, because this is not a point of privilege I will not withdraw nor will I retract any of my statements.